coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 17 March 1986 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a lignite mine. Following two separate court settlements made in 1987 and 1992, the applicant received compensation for the injuries sustained.
7.  On 5 April 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer, a company called RLV, in the Celje Labour Court (Sodišče združenega dela v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,315,789 tolars (approximately 9,600 euros) for the injuries sustained in the accident of 1986, but which only became apparent after the settlements.
Between 1 June 1994 and 10 February 1997 the applicant lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 1 June 1994 and 13 December 1996 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the five hearings held between 9 January 1995 and 25 March 1997 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert and a financial expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 April 1997.
8.  On 10 April 1997 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče). RLV cross-appealed.
On 3 December 1999 the court allowed the appeals in part and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 January 2000.
9.  The hearing before the Celje Labour Court scheduled for 2 March 2000 was adjourned until 30 March 2000 at the applicant’s request.
Between 29 March 2000 and 21 March 2001 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.
On 20 June 2000 the court sought an additional opinion from the appointed medical expert.
On 24 May 2001 the court held a hearing and concluded the case.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 June 2001.
10.  On 26 June 2001 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court. He also sought an exemption from court fees. RLV cross-appealed.
On 24 August 2001 the Celje Labour Court rejected the applicant’s request for exemption from court fees.
On 4 September 2001 the applicant appealed against the decision concerning court fees to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 3 October 2003 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the first-instance court decision concerning court fees.
On the same day the court rejected the appeals against the first-instance court’s judgment.
11.  On 30 October 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 15 June 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 June 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 11 March 1996 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court seeking the termination of the common ownership of real estate belonging to him and his divorced wife.
6.  At the subsequent hearings on 27 March, 12 June, 29 June and 21 October 1997 and 26 May 1998, the applicant extended his claims to include the allocation of other items of the matrimonial property. He was repeatedly invited to give better particulars of his claims.
7.  At the hearing on 22 October 1998 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of expropriation proceedings concerning one of the real properties at issue.
8.  On the applicant’s procedural appeal, on 14 January 1999 the Budapest Regional Court ordered that the proceedings be resumed. Subsequently, hearings were held on 9 September 1999, 6 January and 11 April 2000. On the latter date the District Court appointed a valuation expert. The expert filed his report on 1 August 2000.
9.  Further hearings took place on 12 September 2000, 9 January and 4 October 2001. On 25 January 2002 another valuation expert was appointed.
10.  The court held additional hearings on 12 February, 26 November 2002, 20 March, 10 July 2003, 9 March, 24 July, 4 November 2004, 4 January and 14 April 2005. On the latter date it again invited the applicant to give better particulars of his claims.
11.  The proceedings are still pending.
12.  On 23 May 1997 the Budapest and Pest County Health Insurance Fund issued a payment order against the applicant concerning unpaid social-security contributions. Subsequently the applicant brought an action in the Pest Central District Court challenging the lawfulness of the administrative decision.
13.  On 3 May 1999 the court observed that, due to a change of legislation, the respondent was replaced by the Tax Authority. On 11 January 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s procedural appeal. He filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court which he withdrew on 27 September 2000.
14.  The court held hearings on 28 March and 5 December 2001. On 5 April 2002 an expert accountant was appointed. The expert presented his opinion on 28 August 2002.
15.  Further hearings took place on 2 October and 28 November 2002.
16.  On 22 January 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the payment order had been issued lawfully.
17.  On 11 April 2003 the applicant appealed.
18.  On 26 January 2004 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
19.  On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review.
7.  The applicants, Mr Sarı and Ms Çolak, were born in 1973 and 1977 respectively. At the material time they lived in Ankara.
8.  On 17 November 1997, at 11.45 p.m., the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody by officers of the Ankara security police in connection with an investigation into the illegal organisation THKP-C Dev Yol – Devrim Hareketi (Turkish People’s Liberation Party-Front – Revolutionary Way – Revolutionary Movement).
9.  The applicants’ detention in police custody was extended, under section 16 of Law no. 2845 (see paragraph 17 below), initially until 21 November 1997, on the authorisation of the public prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court, and subsequently until 23 November 1997 (inclusive) by order of a judge of that court.
10.  Before the end of their police custody period, on 23 November 1997 at 11.45 p.m., the applicants were questioned by the public prosecutor. They were not brought before a judge until the following morning, that is to say on 24 November 1997. The judge ordered Ms Çolak to be released for the duration of the proceedings and remanded Mr Sarı in custody.
11.  By a bill of indictment of 8 December 1997, the public prosecutor committed the applicants to stand trial before the National Security Court. He called for their conviction, under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code, on a charge of belonging to an armed gang.
12.  Following a hearing on 9 June 1998 before a trial court, Mr Sarı was granted provisional release.
13.  In a judgment of 22 April 1999, after reclassifying the offence, the National Security Court found the applicants guilty of aiding and abetting an armed gang, an offence punishable under Article 169 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment each, and banned them from holding public office for three years.
14.  The applicants appealed on points of law against that judgment.
15.  In a judgment of 23 February 2000, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on account of an erroneous classification of the offence.
16.  The National Security Court, in a judgment of 7 November 2001, deferred its decision on the applicants’ case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Dzerzhynsk, the Donetsk Region.
5.  In September 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Artema State-owned coal mine (the applicant’s former employer, hereafter “the ACM”), seeking an increase of his industrial disease benefits and claiming compensation for the delays in current payments. On 29 September 2000 the Dzerzhynsk City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) rejected the applicant’s claim for increased benefits. However, the court awarded the applicant a total of UAH 27,972[1] for arrears in the current payments. The applicant appealed against the rejection of his first claim. On 20 November 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of the City Court which, accordingly, became final and was sent to the Dzerzhynsk City Bailiffs’ Service for compulsory enforcement.
6.  On 14 June 2001 the Deputy President of the Donetsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request for supervisory review of the September 2000 judgment.  On 6 October 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal lodged under the new cassation procedure.
7.  On 8 May 2001 the City Court awarded the applicant a further UAH 17,777[2] in compensation for unpaid industrial disability benefits. The enforcement proceedings regarding this judgment were instituted on 5 July 2001.
8.  On 30 August 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy decided to wind up the ACM and, on 7 November 2001, to transfer its assets to the Gorlovka Directorate for Coal Mine Liquidations.
9.  On 19 November 2001 the applicant was partially paid the award from September 2000, save for UAH 600[3], and received UAH 1998.86[4] of the amount awarded in May 2001.
10.  On 10 July 2002 the applicant’s enforcement cases were transmitted to the ACM’s liquidation commission.
11.  On 11 July 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the ACM and, on 8 August 2002, having declared it bankrupt, opened the liquidation procedure.
12.  The judgments of 29 September 2000 and 8 May 2001 remain partially unenforced.
3.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Hřensko.
4.  On 3 July 1992 the Děčín District Court (okresní soud) granted the applicant’s action and declared the North-Bohemian Gas Company’s (Severočeské plynárny) immediate termination of his employment in 1989 null and void.
5.  On 14 October 1997 the applicant lodged an action for loss of wages against his former employer in the Ústí nad Labem District Court[1]. On 10 December 1997 he paid court fees.
6.  On 25 September 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings due to the applicant’s alleged withdrawal of his action.
7.  On 30 November 1998 the Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 23 November 1998, quashed this decision and remitted the case to the District Court for further consideration.
8.  A hearing held on 9 April 1999 was adjourned sine die with a view to verifying information presented at the hearing.
9.  On 25 October 1999 the applicant’s case was transmitted to another judge because of the long-term illness of the original judge.
10.  On 4 October 2000 the applicant’s legal representative, upon the court’s telephoned request, submitted supplementary documents.
11.  On 15 January 2001 he was requested to present other documents. As the applicant’s legal representative did not do so, the court urged him to comply on 9 April 2001. He complied on 14 May 2001.
12.  On 13 June 2001 the defendant submitted its written comments.
13.  On 28 August 2001 the District Court’s vice-president, upon the applicant’s complaint, acknowledged the delay in the proceedings.
14.  As the judge dealing with the applicant’s case had left on maternity leave on 8 October 2001, another judge was appointed. On 15 November 2001 the District Court vice-president requested the new judge to deal with the case speedily. She renewed her request on 1 October 2002. On 31 October 2002 the vice-president appointed another judge to deal with the case due to the long-term illness of the previous judge.
15.  In the meantime, on 9 August 2002, the applicant had asked for referral of his action to the Liberec District Court, considering that the latter would deal with the action without delay. On 10 March 2003 his legal representative was invited to clarify his client’s request. On 7 April 2003 the lawyer replied and, on 18 April 2003, he paid court fees concerning the referral.
16.  On 7 May 2003 the applicant’s request was sent to the defendant which, on 29 May 2003, expressed its disagreement.
17. On 20 June 2003 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) decided that the applicant’s action would not be transferred to the Liberec District Court.
18.  On 4 September 2003 the vice-president of the District Court again urged the judge to continue to deal with the case.
19.  Two hearings were held, on 7 November 2003 and 6 February 2004. A hearing which was to be held on 14 May 2004 was adjourned sine die on 2 April 2004, as the judge was ill. On 20 September 2004 another judge was appointed, who fixed the next hearing for 5 January 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Laško.
6.  On 23 October 1995 the applicant was injured while serving a military service as a conscript.
7.  On 3 August 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State (the Ministry of Defence) in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,800,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 15,840 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 29 March 1999 and 25 September 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 27 September 1999 and 3 October 2001 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the two hearings held on 5 February 2002 and on 10 October 2002, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 20 January 2003.
8.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 19 May 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 2 July 2004.
9. In the re-examination proceedings the applicant lodged one preliminary written submission.
At the hearing held on 12 October 2004, the Celje District Court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 November 2004.
10. On 9 December 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Celje.
6.  On 25 December 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident.
7.  On 15 April 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance company ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,019,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 8,420 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 25 September 1998 and 16 October 2001 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 22 January 1999 and 25 April 2000 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the three hearings held between 23 November 1999 and 23 October 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed two medical experts.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 20 November 2001.
8.  On 4 December 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZM cross-appealed.
On 8 January 2003 the court partly upheld both appeals.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 February 2003.
9.  On 5 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 22 April 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 12 July 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Žalec.
6.  In 1987 the applicant was injured in a dispute with his former wife R.I. in which both sustained injuries.
7.  On 9 February 1988 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against R. I. in the Celje Basic Court, Žalec Unit (Temljeno sodišče v Celju, enota v Žalcu) seeking damages for the injuries sustained. R. I. lodged a counter-claim.
Until 28 June 1994, when the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, the court held three hearings and appointed three medical experts.
At the hearing held on 4 November 1994, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding both claims in part, was served on the applicant on 10 January 1995.
8. On 26 January 1995 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). R. I. cross-appealed.
On 4 April 1996 the court allowed both appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination
The decision was served on the applicant on 9 May 1996.
9. On 3 June 1996, further to the reform of the judicial system, the (renamed) Žalec Local Court declared lack of jurisdiction and reassigned the case to the (renamed) Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju).
In the re-examination proceedings, the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing between 6 January and 9 November 1998.
At the hearing held 18 January 1999, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding both claims in part, was served on the applicant on 20 April 1999.
10. On 30 April 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. R. I. cross-appealed.
On 11 November 1999 the court allowed both appeals by amending the first-instance decision in part and remitting the case for re-examination in part.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 16 December 1999.
11. On 14 January 2000 R. I. lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) regarding the part of the judgment amending the first-instance court’s judgment in favour of the applicant.
On 18 October 2001 the court allowed R. I.’s appeal in part and accordingly changed the Higher Court’s judgment.
The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 13 December 2001.
12. On 14 January 2002 the applicant filed pleadings regarding the remaining part of the case that was remitted to the first instance court.
On 19 March 2002 the parties reached a court settlement.
13. On 12 June 2002 the first-instance court ordered the applicant to pay court fees for the proceedings.
On 28 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal, which was rejected by the Celje Higher Court on 11 December 2002.
That decision was served on the applicant on 16 January 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Žalec.
6.  On 23 October 1995 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 12 December 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,800,000 tolars (approximately 11,700 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 25 September 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was transferred to a new judge.
Between 6 November 1997 and 24 February 2000 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 11 February 1998 and 21 December 1999 he made seven requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the five hearings held between 12 October 1998 and 6 December 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 26 February 2001.
8.  On 13 March 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court and requested the first-instance court to issue a supplement judgment. ZT cross-appealed.
On 29 March 2001 the first-instance court issued a supplement judgment.
On 30 May 2002 the Celje Higher Court dismissed both appeals.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 June 2002.
9.  On 30 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and sought recusal of one of the judges.
On 24 February 2003 the president of the court rejected the request for a recusal of a judge.
On 30 October 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 18 November 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Vojnik.
6.  On 10 January 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. He was a conscript and was appointed to work in a cafeteria of the military training centre.
7.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Defence (Republika Slovenija, Ministrtstvo za obrambo, the Ministry) in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,286,000 tolars (approximately 13,700 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 21 October 1998 and 10 April 2001 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Between 18 May and 16 July 2001 he lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the five hearings held between 27 September 2001 and 10 March 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert and an expert for safety at work.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 March 2003.
8.  On 17 March 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). The Ministry cross-appealed.
On 20 October 2004 the court allowed the Ministry’s appeal in part and lowered the damages awarded by the first-instance court.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 2 November 2004.
9.  On 22 November 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
The proceedings are still pending.